Loading...
1980-08-20August 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on August 20, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.~, County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1) Call to Order. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman. The meeting was called to order at 7:51 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2) ZMA-80-13. Hedgerow Corporation. Petition to rezone 52.0 acres from A-1 to RPN/A-1 with 25 units on 24.38 acres and 17.12 acres of open space, with a density of 0.5 dwelling unit per acre. Located on the south side of Route 250 West, adjacent to the Greencroft Club. County Tax Map 58, Parcels 91~and 91~. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1980) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the planning staff report: Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Current Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Acreage: 52.0 acres Location: Property described as parcels 9lA and 9lB (portions thereof) on tax map 58; located on the south side of Route 250 West adjacent to the Greencroft Club. Existing Zoning in the Area: culture. Ail parcels adjacent to the site are zoned A-1 Agri- Character of the Area: The site is located in a rural area whi:ch is primarily pastureland. It is surrounded by larger parcels which appear to be over five acres. Currently the Greencroft Club and one dwelling unit are located on this portion of the site. History: The Board of Supervisors approved SP-184 to locate a swim and tennis club (Greencroft Club) on July 26, 1972. Condition of the Roads Serving the Site: This section of Route 250 West, from the by-pass to Route 738 in Ivy, carries 7,700 vtpd. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is located on the fringe of the Ivy Village and is recommended for Agricultural/Conservation with a recommended density of one dwelling unit per five acres. Comparative Impact Statistics: Dwellings Population VTPD School Children Existing A-I* RPNYA-I* 26 26 8O.6 8O.6 182 182 14.82 14.82 *(Total acres used for the above A-1 comparison was 52 acres. The staff chose not to delete the land within the floodplain and land for rights-of-way for the calculations.) Land Use Summary Number of Lots: residential village: residential: Total Acreage: residential village residential private club rights-of-way open space Proposed gross density Proposed net density Gross Density permitted Range in lot size 25 lots 13 lots 12 lots 52 acres 4.48 acres 19.90 acres 7.36 acres 2.84 acres 17.42 acres 0.5 du/acre 0.82 du/acre 0.5 du/acre 12,632 square feet (0.29 acre) to 3.33 acres Staff Comment: The plan does not comply with the Agricultural/Conservation desig- nation in the Comprehensive Plan in its density recommendations. The number of units proposed and those that can be obtained by right in the A-1 zone are approximately the same and staff feels that this plan is more desirable than a conventional subdivision. The applicant has proposed the open space be used as a buffer for the scenic highway and also as agricultural land. In addition, many of the units will not be visible from Route 250 West. Staff recommends approval of this application with the following recommendations: Approval is for a maximum of 26 dwelling units. Location and acreages of land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of lots approved; August 20~ 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) 2. No grading shall occur until final subdivision approval; Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances prior to final subdivision approval; County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the use of the open space for septic fields, maintenance of roads, open space, pathways, runoff control and appurtenant structures prior to final subdivision approval; ¸5. Health Department approval of two septic field locations for each lot prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat; Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and a fire flow of 750 gpm prior to final subdivision approval; Ail units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by appropriate ~gencies prior to final subdivision approval; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; 9. County Engineer approval of road plans; 10. Landscaping shall be provided as shown on the preliminary pSan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 22, 1950 unanimously recommended approval with the following additional conditions: 11. 12. Prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat, provide information on the areas and types of sewage disposal for lots 1- 13; No septic fields to be located on 25% or greater slope. Mr. Tucker then read comments from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation regarding this proposed development: Hedgerow Corporation/Thirteen South RPN preliminary plat, Route 250 west, a private street, commercial entrance will be required utilizing a right-turn lane 200 feet long and 12 feet wide with a 200 foot taper. Five Hundred-Fifty Feet of sight distance will be required. It appears grading will be re- quired to accommodate this sight distance to the east due to the existing grade. Mr. Tucker noted the applicant intends to locate'the septic fields in open space, and the alternate drainfield site will be located in the open space located along Route 250. Larger lots are adequate to accommodate their own drainfie!ds, but all lots will be served by public water. Mr. Tucker's final note was that the Greencroft Club is considered one of the lots on this plat. Mr. Fisher asked about a letter from W. Jackson Douglas of E. I. Design Associates addressed to J. HarVey Bailey in which he states "we have combined the areas of impervious surface for run-off control purposes in (1) Thirteen South, a residential planned neigh- borhood and (2) Thirteen South, a farm subdivision. The combined projects total 82.81 acres, 52 acres in the RPN and 30.81 in the Farm Subdivision." He questioned combining the 52 acres on this ZMA petition with acreage on adjacent farm subdivision. Mr. Fisher said he would prefer to consider this application on its property that eliminating the acreage of the farm subdivision, it is probable that this RPN would come under require- ments of the runoff control ordinance. There were no further questions of Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. Jack Douglas, representing the applicant, who said the plan has been designed to be energy efficient as well as preserve the visual quality. Mr. Douglas said the reason the acreage of this RPN and the additional farm subdivision were combined is that the two properties "fit together and drain toward Ivy Creek". He said he spoke to the County Engineer about this method of combining two parcels in computing runoff, and that the consensus was that they be combined since they do drain into the Ivy Creek together. Mr. Fisher said what if at some future date the owner of the 31 acres decides to rezone, and due to that rezoning it causes both properties to exceed guidelines of the runoff control ordinance; there is no provision to handle such a situation. Mr. Douglas said it will be written in the deed of each RPN lot that said lot cannot be further subdivided. Mr. Lindstrom asked what percentage of the proposed open space would the septic field take. Mr. Douglas said a soil specialist and sanitary engineer have been hired to study the soil on the lots, and it has been determined that the best method would be to install a septic tank at each house, connected by a four inch pipe to a dosing site which then goes in to the septic field. The system as proposed will consume approximately 50% of the open space lot. Mr. Fisher asked about ownership .of this septic system which would serve 13 units. Mr. Douglas said an agreement will be drawn be.tween the owners.of those 13 units to maintain the septic system. Mr. Fisher then asked if those owners would have an absolute right to use the land near Route 250 in case the original field failed. Mr. Douglas said yes they would, and also that that area has been approved by the Health Department. Mr. Douglas added that sewage from the Greencroft Club is presently draining onto this parcel, and the Health Department is requiring connection to the same septic field as these 13 units. Next to speak was Mrs. Peggy King representing the League of Women Voters. Mrs. King said the League was concerned about the Greencroft Club's sewage draining onto the open space septic lot as proposed. She said the club attracts a large number of people, has a restaurant and other uses, and produces much more sewage than a single-family dwelling. August 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation contract and the special use permit schedule (i.e. - The contractor must initiate the project within 45 days of contract award). Staff would recommend that the Zoning text (Section 16-21) be amended to permit the Zoning Administrator, after consultation with other officials, to administra- tively approve such uses. In cases where the Zoning Administrator deems a review by the Board necessary due to potential impact on the area, scale of operation, etc., he would refer the application for public hearing. Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting of August 12, 1980, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended this special permit for approval with no conditions. There were no questions of Mr. Tucker by Board members, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. Roger Farris, representing Fairfield Bridge Company who said the project to replace the Mechums River Bridge is about 60% completed and that his firm is under contract with the State to remove all equipment and debris and the temporary trailer upon completion of the work. Mr. Farris said the only thing on this 60 acre parcel is the temporary office trailer. No one else wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. ~Mr. Lindstrom commented that he has passed the site of this bridge construction and complimented Mr. Farris on the excellent job of soil erosion control. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve this petition as recom- mended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Tucker be sure when the new zoning ordinance is worked on, that situations such as this are considered so that applications where temporary work site facilities are required by the State, can be granted approval by the staff, and not brought before the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 4) SP-80-44. Gary Duncan. Petition for a Group Home on 152 acres zoned A-1. Located south of Route 810, approximately 3.5 miles south of Boonesville General Store, adjacent to Adventure Bound School. County Tax Map 6, Parcel 40. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff report as follows: Request: Group Home (Section 2-1-24(12.1) Acreage.: 152 acres Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 6; Parcel 40, is located on the south side of Route 810 about 1/4 mile east of Route 687. Character of the Area: The dwelling is located about 1/2 mile from Route 810. The property is heavily wooded. Development in the area is sparse. The applicant operates Adventure Bound School which is located at Routes 810 and 687. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to house students enrolled in the Adventure Bound School because facilities at the site are inadequate. Licensure has been obtained from the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Department of Education, and Department of Welfare to house a maXimum of eight students. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Submittal of copies of approvals from appropriate federal, state and local agencies. Should requirements of any approval agency conflict with requirements contained herein, the more stringent requirements shall apply; e Upgrading of entrance road to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator for purposes of emergency vehicle access; 3. ~ Building and Fire Official approvals; Not more than eight children, other than children of the appli- cant, may be housed on the premises. Ail such children shall be enrolled in Adventure Bound School. This permit is issued to the applicant and is not transferrable. Mr. Tucker noted that on August 12, 1980, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval with the four conditions stated above. Mr. Bill Lieb, representing the applicant was present. Mr. Lieb said the staff report was very thorough, that the home is directly adjacent to the school and that it is planned to house boys ages 11 to 14 years who attend the School. Mr. Henley asked how the children'are selected for attending this school. Mr. Lieb said the children are emotionally disturbed and have learning problems, and that their attendance is through referral mainly from the Department of Education by the State. He added that it is a private non-profit school which was purchased several years ago from the Reverend Fish. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened, and there being no one present to speak either for or against this petition, was immediately closed. August 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) She said if the County ordinances are followed, a minimum of one third of the proposed septic lot will be used for the field. She said such a percentage of land use would cause the septic field to become saturated, and that the secondary septic lot has very steep slopes and has the possibility of being ineffective causing pollution of Ivy Creek and the Reservoir. Mrs. Joan Graves was next to speak, and said that the Planning Commission felt this type of development would lessen the impact on Route 250. She said she disagreed, espe- cially because the Board would be approving substandard lots and a drainfield inadequate to handle the sewage from those 13 residences. She said she felt the plan presented was very preliminary and would prove~to be impossible to execute, and advised the Board to deny this rezoning until a workable plan is presented. No one else wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher then asked what the proposed acreage of the Greencroft Club would be. Mr. Tucker said it is 7.36 acres gross, that the plan is for 26 parcels, one is Greencroft the other 25 are residential. Mr. Fisher then asked if this zoning map amendment would affect any of the conditions placed on SP-184 which granted approval of the Greencroft Club. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. Mr. Fisher said possibly those conditions should also be reviewed at this time to see if there are any conflicts. Dr. Iachetta said he felt this proposed plan for 1/3 acre lots is a gross misuse of the RPN and that a leechfield serving 13 units would never work for any length of time without causing difficulties. Mr. Fisher said a precedent has been set using this tech- nique, that being Peacock Hill,fbut in that instance there was substantial open land where substitute leechfields could be located. Miss Nash said she felt the location of the open space was too far from the residential lots. That the purpose of the open_space was so it could be used for recreation by the lot owners, and she felt this was almost unaccessible. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if he had reviewed the special use permit for the Greencroft Club. Mr. St. John said he had not, but felt that if the Board placed any provisions on this rezoning that would conflict with the special use Permit, the con- ditions of the RPN would supercede the special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said the RPN is creating a 30% increase in density and that there are some slope limitations which make him not inclined to support this request. Mr. Fisher then reviewed the soil and geological study~prepared by E. O. Gooch and Associates which indicated a substantial number of lots individually are unsuitable to support a drainfield. Mr. Henley said he felt the developer was being too chintzy with his land. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to deny ZMA-80-13. Mr. Fisher said he finds difficulty in approving this request, especially since there appears to be such a difference of opinion between the staff and Planning Commission. He seriously questioned the ability of the land to support 26, two-acre lots if development occurred with the present zoning. Mr. Fisher also disapproved of the use of a separate parcel of land in computing figures to determine if the runoff control ordinance applies. He concluded that the lots proposed are too small and that he felt the proposed septic system would not work adequately. Dr. Iachetta said he viewed this plan as a method to get under the 5% exclusion in the runoff control ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said this situation makes it obvious that the Runoff Control Ordinance should be amended to either tighten or eliminate the 5% exclusion. Miss Nash said she was very dubious about the proposed septic system. Roll was then called, and the motion to deny ZMA-80-13 was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 3) SP-80-39. Fairfield Bridge Co., Inc. Petition for temporary construction facilities on 61.9 acres zoned A-1. Located on north side of Route 601 near the intersection of Routes 678 and 601. County Tax Map 29, Parcel 67. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Request: Temporary Construction Facilities (Section~ 2-1-25(33) Acreage: 61.9 acres Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 67, is located on the east side of Route 601 at the South Rivanna River. Character of the Area: A dwelling is located on the property. The field office trailer is adjacent to the dwelling. Staff Comment-: Staff has reviewed this site and is of the opinion that the office trailer and equipment storage would not be detrimental to the area. Staff recommends approval with no conditions (removal of equip- ment, disposal of debris and restoration of disturbed areas is covered by the contract between Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor- tation and Fairfield Bridge). Staff opinion is that requiring a special use permit for temporary construction facilities in all cases is impractical, unnecessary, and costly. For example, as indicated in Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's letter of June 26, i980, in this-particular case, it was not possible for the contractor to fulfill the time constraints August 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash to approve this special use permit with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mz~ i~Agh~ad~t~m~.Nd.bS~ ~.Re~aluhien:to~ ZnSan2~to Include the Parks and Recreation Plan as an element of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1980.) Mr. Tucker noted that this item has been deferred by the Planning Commission and suggested this item be readvertised, because it most likely will not be back before the Planning Commission until possibly October. Agenda Item No. 6) Statements of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of July, 1980 were presented along with summary state- ment of prisoner days, statement of the jail physician, and salaries of the paramedics. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7a) Lottery Permit. Stony Point Elementary P.T.O. has requested a permit for a raffle to be held on November 14, 1~80. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve this lottery permit in accordance with the accepted rules of procedure. Roll was called~and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7b) Lottery Permit. Friends and Parents of the Children's Rehabili- tation Center for a raffle to be held on September 27, 1980. It was noted in a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones dated August 20, 1980, that if this permit is approved, it should be done with six conditions as required by Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the lottery permit request with the six conditions recommended by the Commonwealth's Attorney as follows: l) Except for reasonable and proper operating costs and prizes, no part of the gross receipts shall be used for any purpose other than those lawful charitable purposes for which the Parents and Friends of the C.R.C. is organized. 2) No person or firm shall be employed for the purpose of organizing, managing or conducting the raffle. 3) No person, firm or organization shall pay or receive any consideration in excess of current fair market rental value for use of the premises where the raffle is being held. The raffle shall be limited to the dates and times for which the application is being made - September 26, 1980 (6 p.m.); September 27, 1980 (10:00 a.m. to 6 p.m.). 5) No person except a bona-fide member of the Parents and Friends of the C.R.C. shall participate in the management, operation or conduct of the raffle, and no person shall receive any renumeration for partici- pating in the management, operation or conduct of such raffle. No door prize shall exceed $25.00 and no jackpot of any nature what- soever shall exceed $1,000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. Sa) Appropriation: Woodbrook School. Mr. Agnor said on July 16, 1980, the Board of Supervisors acted favorably to authorize funds to correct a structural problem at Woodbrook School, and this request was simply to appropriate those funRs. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: Z BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $2,000 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 19.31, School Construction Fund for Woodbrook School. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. August 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 8b) Appropriation: Juvenile Court Building. Mr. Agnor said the County's share of this project will be $71,000, but following a review by Mr. Jones, it has been recommended that the Board appropriate $63,500 in order for the County to be able to accept the construction bid before it expires. Mr. Agnor said this is for completion of the basement with four prisoner cells, a-lunch room and-a small recreational area. Mr. Agnor noted that the difference between the $71,000 and the $63,500 has already been appropriated. Motion was offered for adoption of the following resolution by Dr. Iachetta, and seconded by Miss Nash: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $63,500 be, ~and the same hereby is, appropriated-from the General Fund and transferred to Code 9700-7060.88 of the General Operating Capital Outlay Fund for renovation of the Juvenile Court Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 9) Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if he has received any further information regarding radioactive waste incineration. Mr. St. John said no further information has been received at his office to this date. Agenda Item No. 10) Adjourn. At 9:20 P.M., there being no further business, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn to 1:30 p.m. on August 27, 1980. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Nbne. Chairman